Wiener - complaint on waterfront proposal "ridiculous"

Updated 11:27 am, Tuesday, February 25, 2014

(02-25) 11:20 PST SAN FRANCISCO -- Who knew that asking for some reports could turn into so much trouble?

Then again, this is San Francisco. And the topic is development.

In what is being portrayed as either a misuse of public funds or a calculated intimidation campaign against an elected official, supporters of a June ballot measure to limit development on San Francisco's waterfront have accused Supervisor Scott Wiener of violating state law by using his staff and office resources for political campaign purposes.

The offense? Working too closely with development interests before introducing legislation at the Board of Supervisors to request that specific city departments, like those involved in urban planning and housing, provide an analysis of how the ballot measure would impact their operations.

Related Stories

On Monday, Jon Golinger, the director of the ballot measure campaign, filed a complaint with City Attorney Dennis Herrera's office accusing Wiener of misusing public resources for a political campaign in creating the legislation. The Board of Supervisors is set to vote on Wiener's proposal Tuesday.

Wiener acknowledges getting the idea from a pro-development analyst who then drafted the initial legislation and later asked in an e-mail to "stay unmentioned for now." Wiener also got talking points and other input from a senior executive for the San Francisco Giants, who, with others, are fighting the ballot measure in court. The measure would threaten a development the team plans in Mission Bay.

Limited-growth advocates behind the ballot measure say Wiener was using public resources, like his office staff, to oppose a ballot measure, which would be illegal.

"Ridiculous" is his response.

Legal to give analysis

Wiener said he was just doing his job - and trying to get the public as much information as possible about the ballot measure. The city attorney's office declined to comment about any investigation, but a memo it issued last year indicates that it is legal to use city resources to provide impartial analyses of ballot measures.

The waterfront measure would require voter approval for any project on Port of San Francisco property to exceed current height limits, which range from zero to 105 feet.

That would mean public votes for at least three major developments in the works: the Golden State Warriors' arena complex at Piers 30-32, the Giants' plan to build an urban village with towers up to 380 feet tall on what is now their main parking lot, and developers' efforts to add housing and business space at the industrial Pier 70.

"It's very brazen of them to object to the public receiving more information about an extensive ballot measure that will go before the voters in June," Wiener said. "The fact that supporters of this measure don't want the question even to be asked, that speaks volumes to me."

Golinger says there already is an impartial process in place to get departmental input for the ballot summary that is coordinated by the Department of Elections. The port, for example, has already provided information saying the measure has several implications, including threatening 3,690 planned housing units and $124 million in anticipated affordable housing fees.

"You can make these arguments on the campaign trail, not at City Hall with taxpayer dollars," Golinger said.

Wiener dismissed the accusation of impropriety as "just a gigantic red herring" designed to intimidate him into silence and coordinated by one of the measure's main backers, former Board of Supervisors PresidentAaron Peskin.

"This is why San Francisco politics can be so toxic sometimes, and you have a lot of elected officials who don't like to stick their neck out," Wiener said. "It's the politics of personal destruction. This is all orchestrated by Aaron Peskin."

Peskin downplayed his involvement with the ballot measure and rejected Wiener's contention, saying: "I will not respond to that, because I think that is the politics of personal destruction."

Texts and e-mails that Wiener's office turned over under a public records request show that Gabriel Metcalf, the executive director for SPUR, a smart-growth think tank, suggested to Wiener that state law allows the Board of Supervisors to request specific information from departments about the fiscal and other impacts of ballot measures.

That was on Feb. 4, the day after Golinger's No Wall on the Waterfront group turned in more than double the 9,702 signatures needed to qualify their measure for the ballot. Two days later, Metcalf e-mailed a draft resolution and followed up later, saying in part: "Hoping to stay unmentioned for now. Till my board takes its vote."

'Time to start lobbying'

Metcalf, in an interview, said he didn't want to make public pronouncements about the measure until SPUR had decided on whether to support it.

On Feb. 11, Wiener texted Jack Bair, general counsel for the Giants, saying: "Now is the time to start lobbying." He suggested four colleagues.

"Okay, I will work with Gabe and others," Bair replied.

"This was purported to be an impartial information request," Golinger said. "The exchanges reveal that the opponents of this measure conceived of the idea, drafted it, and are lobbying for it. It's a wolf in sheep's clothing."

Wiener said that cooperation was completely legal and routine at City Hall.

Bair likewise maintained that Wiener was following the law and said the "effort to intimidate and silence" him "is outrageous and disturbing."

Latest from the SFGATE homepage:

Click below for the top news from around the Bay Area and beyond. Sign up for our newsletters to be the first to learn about breaking news and more. Go to 'Sign In' and 'Manage Profile' at the top of the page.